REPORT OF THE

REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION I MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

GOVERANCE SUBCOMMITTEE

The NCAA Division I Management Council Governance Subcommittee submits the following report from its February 28, 2006, meeting:

1. ACTION ITEMS.

a. Suggested modification to the process used for the initial consideration of legislation.

(1) Recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee recommends the Division I Management Council modify its current process for initially reviewing legislation. Pursuant to this recommendation, Management Council members would have four options when casting an initial vote on a proposal: (a) Send the proposal directly to the Division I Board of Directors for adoption; (b) Send the proposals out for additional membership comment during the 60-day comment/amendment period; (c) Defeat the proposal; or (d) Abstain. Under this recommended modification, proposals would still be required to receive at least 2/3 support of the Management Council members present and voting to move directly to the Board of Directors for consideration on the initial review. Proposals that do not receive the requisite 2/3 support but receive at least a majority of the Management Council members that either support the proposal being sent directly to the Division I Board of Directors for adoption or support sending the proposals out for additional membership comment, shall be sent out for additional membership comment.

(2) Rationale. The Governance Subcommittee’s assessment of the January 2006 Management Council meeting was that the new process to initially consider legislation was successful in helping to winnow the Division I legislative agenda, but had an unintended consequence of Management Council members sometimes casting strategic votes rather than voting on the merits of a proposal. Subcommittee members questioned whether these strategic votes, which periodically resulted in multiple votes on one proposal, provided helpful guidance to the membership. Accordingly, the subcommittee is recommending modifying the process so the Management Council can, with the help of voting machines, have the option of voting on whether it wants a proposal to go straight to the Board for consideration, out for comment or defeated. Under this process the Management Council members can vote their true intentions regarding a proposal and not strategically. Accordingly, it will be the actual Management Council vote rather than the process used by the Council that will provide the membership with guidance.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(4) Impact on Student-Athletes’ Time. None.

b. Suggested modification to the timing of the January Division I Board of Directors meeting.

(1) Recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that the Management Council forward a recommendation to the Division I Board of Directors asking the Board to schedule its current January meeting later in the cycle in order to establish a larger window between the January Management Council and Board of Directors meetings. By scheduling the Board of Directors meeting a few weeks later, the Board, along with the membership, will have more time to become familiar with the Management Council’s legislative actions before being asked to consider the legislation.

(2) Rationale. In October 2005, Division I adopted a new process, whereby upon initial consideration, proposals that received at least 2/3 support by the Management Council would move straight to the Board of Directors for consideration. This change was enacted in an attempt to help winnow the Division I legislative agenda and to provide the membership with more clarity regarding the agenda. At the January 2006 meeting, using this new process, approximately half of the legislative proposals on the Division I legislative agenda received the requisite Management Council support to move straight to the Board of Directors for consideration. While the efficiency of this process was viewed by some as a success, it also resulted in the Board of Directors having to consider a large number of legislative proposals with little time to fully prepare. Typically, the Division I Board of Directors meets one to two weeks after the Management Council meetings, but in January, due to an effort to schedule meetings in conjunction with the NCAA Convention, the Board meets the day after the Management Council meeting. As a result, the Board had little time to review the Management Council’s actions. By establishing a larger window between the Management Council and Board of Directors meetings in January, there would be more time to prepare materials to help educate the membership and the Board regarding the Management Council’s actions while still allowing for an opportunity for some proposals to be adopted based on initial review.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(4) Impact of Student-Athletes’ Time. None.

2. INFORMATION ITEMS.

a. Update Regarding Staff Examination of Divisional Legislative Cycles. The subcommittee members received an update on the work of the NCAA staff group examining meeting frequency and timing in light of the NCAA Executive Committee’s charge to reduce committee expenditures. The subcommittee acknowledged that the staff group’s examination was different than theirs although somewhat related. The subcommittee examined the options being considered by the staff group and offered the following comments:

(1) At present, the subcommittee would not recommend making major changes to the Division I legislative cycle as there have been a number of modifications over the past few years and the Division I membership only now appears to be somewhat familiar with the Division I legislative process.

(2) The subcommittee favors the current legislative process, whereby the Management Council can consider proposals two times before they are forwarded to the Board of Directors, believing the Division I membership takes comfort in knowing that complex proposals will not automatically move directly to the Board after Management Council review.

(3) The subcommittee stressed that before any changes are made to the legislative cycles, efforts should be made to ensure the timing of committee meetings sync up so there is an efficient flow of information. They also noted that spring conference meetings play an important role in enhancing governance discussions. Accordingly, proposed change to the divisional legislative cycles should respect the timing of conference meetings.

b. Division I-AA/I-AAA Representation. The subcommittee reviewed a request from the Division I-AA/I-AAA commissioners in which they asked that as part of the Governance Subcommittee’s examination, consideration be given to providing full representation to all 31 Division I conferences on the Board of Directors. In making this request, the Division I-AA/I-AAA commissioners acknowledged the general desire in the Division to maintain the current voting balance between the subdivisions. Further, it was noted that presidents serving on the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Committee have raised this issue.

c. Focus of Governance Examination. Having previously identified attributes that a successful Division I governance process should possess, the subcommittee continued its examination by reviewing a list of functions currently addressed by the Division I governance process (Attachment A-Part 1, 2, 3, 4). In conducting its review, which is aimed at providing more efficiency in the Division I governance process, the subcommittee acknowledged the need to address the Board of Directors apparent lack of confidence in the information and recommendations it receives from the existing substructure. They noted that the increase in the number of NCAA governance ad hoc groups and task forces is evidence that the Board is not satisfied with the work and timeliness of the current substructure.

d. Preliminary Development of Models. The subcommittee entered into a brainstorming session and developed the following preliminary governance models intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Division I governance process:

(1) Model One. Eliminate the Division I Management Council and the two current cabinets and in their stead, establish a conference advisory group and a number of smaller issues-specific cabinets. (Attachment B)

Pursuant to this model, the Division I Board of Directors would remain in tact as the primary leadership body in Division I, along with the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Committee. [Note: The subcommittee discussed whether the Board of Directors should be expanded to provide all 31 Division I conferences representation with weighted voting, but the members did not reach consensus.] The current Division I Management Council would be eliminated and in its stead a conference advisory group would be established. This group of 31 conference commissioners or their designees would serve in more of an advisory role to the Board than the current Management Council, which spends much of its time considering pending legislation. Despite being smaller in size than the current Management Council, it is envisioned that the conference advisory group would maintain the current voting balance.

Additionally, under this model, the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet would be eliminated and replaced with a series of smaller cabinets with more limited topical jurisdiction. [Note: The subcommittee tentatively suggested these cabinets have representatives from all 31 multisport conferences.] The intent behind the subcommittee’s recommendation being small cabinets with more limited jurisdiction may be better able to provide expertise on issues and be more nimble than the bigger cabinets. The cabinets would all be of equal stature and size within the structure. While the discussion regarding the topical jurisdiction of the smaller cabinets was preliminary in nature, the following topical areas were identified:

Legislative Cabinet – The Legislative Cabinet would be the primary body responsible for considering legislation and making legislative recommendations to the conference advisory group and the Board of Directors. It would play a legislative role similar to that of the current Management Council in reviewing legislation and also assume the current functions of the Legislative Review Subcommittee. It is anticipated that this cabinet would include individuals with a high level of legislative expertise. Cabinet duties would include:

· Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of proposed legislation;

· Developing educational materials;

· Developing a voting order chart;

· Issuing interpretations;

· Considering waivers of legislation; and

· Voting on proposals (For review by the conference advisory group and the Board of Directors).

Administrative Cabinet – The Administrative Cabinet, true to its name, would be primarily responsible for addressing the administrative functions of Division I. This cabinet would assume many of the responsibilities of the current Management Council regarding the regular operations of the division. Cabinet duties would include:

· Association-wide issues and receiving information from association-wide committees;

· Division I governance and legislative process issues;

· Division I membership standards;

· Assisting the Division I Board of Directors with divisional budget issues; and

· Divisional strategic planning and policy issues.

Academic Cabinet – The Academic Cabinet would assume many of the functions currently performed by the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet with regard to academics, plus it would assume jurisdiction over all academic matters currently addressed in other places in the substructure. Cabinet duties would include:

· Overseeing academic research and policies;

· Establishing, managing and monitoring eligibility standards;

· Administration of academic waivers; and

· Once the program of incentives and disincentives is fully developed, assuming the administrative details of the program from the Committee on Academic Performance.

Student-Athlete Well-Being Cabinet – The Student-Athlete Well-Being Cabinet would assume responsibility over issues which the subcommittee identified as having direct impact on the overall student-athlete experience. Accordingly, this cabinet would assume jurisdiction over issues currently addressed at various points throughout the substructure. The cabinet duties would include:

· Financial aid matters;

· Recruiting issues;

· Bylaw 12 amateurism issues;

· Bylaw 16 extra benefit issues; and

· Playing and practice seasons regulations.

Championships/Competition Cabinet – The Championships/Competition Cabinet would retain much of the jurisdiction of the current Championships/Competition Cabinet, except for those issues that would be more closely aligned with the jurisdiction of the Student-Athlete Well-Being Cabinet or association-wide matters.

(2) Model Two – Model Two is similar to Model One in that it calls for the elimination of the Management Council and cabinets and in their stead, the establishment of a conference advisory group and a series of smaller cabinets. The major distinction between Model One and Model Two is that under Model Two, the legislative cabinet would forward legislative recommendations to the Board of Directors rather than assigning that responsibility to the conference advisory group. The intention behind this model is to provide the conference advisory group with more time to examine bigger policy issues. (Attachment C)

Pursuant to this model, the Division I Board of Directors would remain in tact as the leadership body in the Division along with the Division I-AA/ I-AAA Presidential Advisory Committee. The Division I Management Council would be replaced by a conference advisory group, which would include representatives from each of the 31 Division I multisport conferences. This conference advisory group would serve primarily in an advisory capacity to the Board and would focus on broad policy issues rather than on the legislative details as the Management Council currently does.

This model also calls for the elimination of the Academics/ Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet and for the assignment of the necessary governance functions to a series of smaller cabinets with more specific, topical jurisdiction. While the subcommittee’s discussions regarding the development of these smaller, topical cabinets was preliminary in nature, the topics identified were similar to those referenced in Model One. The subcommittee acknowledged the importance of ensuring student-athletes and coaches are included on these cabinets.

Pursuant to this model, the four smaller cabinets would have the authority to propose legislation. Once proposed, the legislation would be sent to the Legislative Review Committee for consideration. This committee would perform a legislative function similar to that currently performed by the Management Council and forward legislative recommendations straight to the Board of Directors. In developing this model, the subcommittee also recommended vesting the staff with authority to address certain administrative matters, which currently require legislation, that are arguably “housekeeping” in nature.

(3) Model Three. The Management Council would review legislation earlier in the legislative cycle to allow more time for the conferences to meet and formulate legislative positions once they have benefited from learning the Management Council’s perspective. Conferences would then cast votes by electronic ballot to assist the Division I Board of Directors. (Attachment D)

Model Three calls for more of a change to the timing of meetings and the flow of information than for a major change to the Division I governance structure. Pursuant to this model, the Division I Board of Directors, the Management Council and the cabinets would all remain in tact with the same general jurisdiction, but the timing of the Management Council meetings would be changed to arguably allow for a more effective and efficient flow of information. Under this model, the Management Council would meet subsequent to the fall cabinet meetings but earlier in the legislative cycle to review proposals and identify strengths and weakness of the legislation. The Management Council would not, though, cast formal votes on proposals, thereby, eliminating the need for conference-directed voting.

Subsequent to the Management Council meeting, conferences would be asked to submit votes on legislation either by e-mail or some other electronic method. This call for votes would occur sufficiently after the Management Council meeting to not only allow time for conferences to conduct legislative meetings with their membership but to provide an opportunity for conferences to discuss issue with one another. This model is intended to enhance the level of dialog regarding legislation at the Management Council level while still valuing the legislative discussions that occur at the conference level.

(4) Model Four – Model Four is similar to Model One in that it calls for the elimination of the Management Council and cabinets and for the establishment of a conference advisory group and a series of smaller cabinets. The difference between this model and Model One is that this model distinguishes the smaller cabinets based on the designation of people serving rather than by topics. (Attachment E)

The ideas set forth in Model Four are not as fully developed as the ideas included in the other models listed above, but the general concepts set forth in this model are similar to those described in Model One. Like Model One, this model calls for the Board of Directors and Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group to maintain their leadership role over Division I and for the Management Council to be replaced by a conference advisory group, which would advise the Board of Directors on broader policy issues. This model also calls for the two current cabinets to be replaced by a series of four or five smaller cabinets. The distinction between Model One and Model Four is that under Model Four, the cabinets’ designations would be based on the function/title of the people serving rather than on the topical jurisdiction assigned. For example, under Model Four there would be an athletics directors cabinet, a coaches cabinet, a sports administrators, a faculty cabinet and a student-athlete cabinet.